DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/29/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, and 17 are pending. Claims 3, 5-6, and 9-16 are canceled. Claims 1-2, and 4 are amended. By virtue of dependency, all dependent claims are also amended in scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant’s specification is silent on the term “processor.” However, the office takes note that the specification states that the control unit is capable of sending/receiving signals, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the control unit has some computer and/or processor (see pages 29-30 of the written specification of the instant application).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 1-2 in line 10 the claim recites “wherein in the processor” this appears to be a typographical error. This same error appears in claim 4 in line 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings have a poor copy shading quality, particularly Figure 8. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims have indefinite and unclear for the following reasons:
Per MPEP 2173.05(p)II “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite.” In the instant application, the claims are apparatus claims with various method steps claimed (i.e., the performative steps recited in the wherein/whereby clauses).
Claim 1 in line 6 recites “wherein forcibly delayed time is applied to the processor” this limitation is unclear how the time is delayed to the processor. It appears that the processor would need to monitor the time (via some structure, however the specification is silent to use of a timer) for a delayed period prior to beginning ice separation.
All the specific time measurements of the claims are to be performed by some structure. The claims are unclear what structure monitors the time. Further, no timer or timing structure is recited in the claims (or disclosed in the originally filed disclosure).
The independent claims 1-2, and 4 recite a processor but do not recite that the processor is configured to or programmed to perform the process steps. The claims need to be rewritten/amended to have the processor configured to or programmed to detect the temperature, monitor the time, make the determinations and to operate the ice separating motor or ice separating heater (etc.).
The wherein clauses are also unclear as to what is to happen/be performed once an “ice separation starting time point” is detected. At those starting points is the motor the driven in some operation or manner? The last lines of the wherein clauses of claims 1-2 and 4 are unclear what is to happen after multiple detected temperatures and time determinations.
Claims 7 and 8 recite the limitation "the ice separating heater" in line 2, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
By virtue of dependency, the dependent claims 7-8 and 17 are also rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kopf (US 2007/0186570 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRSTIN U OSWALD whose telephone number is (571)270-3557. The examiner can normally be reached 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Len Tran can be reached at 571-272-1184. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRSTIN U OSWALD/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ERIC S RUPPERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763